A new swing state has come on to the radar courtesy of the Public Affairs Institute at Minnesota State University Moorhead, which has conducted a poll of 606 voters in North Dakota showing Barack Obama leading John McCain 45 per cent to 43 per cent. That might not be much to go on – the state was last surveyed a month ago by Rasmussen, who had McCain leading 53 per cent to 40 per cent – but it’s enough to put it in the Obama column for purposes of my own polling aggregate methodology. As explained in previous posts, this involves using all the polling going back to October 1 or as much of it as is necessary to produce a sample of over 3000, with each poll weighted according to its sample and adjusted according to the shift in the Real Clear Politics national poll average since the day it was conducted. Note that McCain remains curiously competitive in Ohio.
| Obama | McCain | Sample | D-EV | R-EV | |
| Michigan | 54.2 | 38.1 | 3196 | 17 | |
| Pennsylvania | 53.2 | 39.2 | 3680 | 21 | |
| Iowa | 54.4 | 40.7 | 692 | 7 | |
| Washington | 54.3 | 41.8 | 1244 | 11 | |
| Wisconsin | 52.0 | 41.2 | 4923 | 10 | |
| New Hampshire | 53.0 | 42.5 | 2760 | 4 | |
| Minnesota | 50.2 | 43.0 | 3195 | 10 | |
| New Mexico | 49.4 | 42.4 | 2427 | 5 | |
| Colorado | 51.2 | 44.7 | 4281 | 9 | |
| Maine | 51.5 | 45.9 | 500 | 4 | |
| Nevada | 49.5 | 45.5 | 3599 | 5 | |
| West Virginia | 48.6 | 45.0 | 1122 | 5 | |
| Florida | 49.1 | 47.0 | 3530 | 27 | |
| North Carolina | 48.0 | 45.9 | 3574 | 15 | |
| Missouri | 49.0 | 47.6 | 4018 | 11 | |
| North Dakota | 45.1 | 44.0 | 1206 | 3 | |
| Virginia | 48.1 | 47.8 | 3811 | 13 | |
| Ohio | 47.2 | 49.1 | 3151 | 20 | |
| Indiana | 45.2 | 48.3 | 1977 | 11 | |
| Others | - | - | - | 175 | 155 |
| RCP/Total | 49.5 | 43.2 | - | 352 | 186 |
505 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 » Show All
Here’s an amusing story about the true nature of Joe-the-republican-stooge-plumber in the NY Times.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/joe-in-the-spotlight/?hp
It turns out that Joe is NOT a plumber, is loaded, and owes back taxes. Wonder why someone like that would support “Honest John” McCain?
Diog, apology accepted.
There will be extra cocoa leaves from Cuzco for you to chew on as the high obama altitude sickness set-in on Nov4.
The fat lady might not be on stage, but she is sure making a racket back stage.
A bloke who earns $250,000 to $280,000 a year having a whinge about a tax rise is a bit rich. Someone get a wrench coz I think this stunt’s sprung a leak!
I’m not apologising to anyone for anything, thanks very much. I still think Obama is a second-rate candidate. He is winning only because of the crash and consequent discrediting of the Republican brand. Any Democrat would be ahead in these circumstances, and either Gore or Clinton would be further ahead. If the crash hadn’t happened McCain might well have kept the lead he established in early September. I agree that McCain has been a worse than expected candidate and that the Palin choice has turned out not to be ill-advised. Even as it is I expect there will be a narrowing in the last week. WV has already gone back to McCain and I expect NC and MO will also do so. The only Bush states that are in the bag are IA and NM. The battlefields will be CO, NV, FL, VA and OH. Obama only needs one of them and I expect he will get at least one, but not by much.
304
Obama’s tax plan gives more to those earning under $250,000 per year than does McCain’s, and that by the way includes Joe the non-plumber:
“All told, voters making under $250,000 a year represent 98 percent of the electorate, so they’ll be picking the next president. ”
Therefore I can’t see tax being a winner for the old dope between now and E-day.
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/10/16/the-real-meaning-of-joe-the-plumber.aspx
Misinformation about it was his only chance, and has been his tactic so far
Fortunately McCain is a fourth-rate candidate, and Palin is a 292348343th-rate candidate.
They both ARE currently ahead, Gore is leading in the 8th dimension, and Clinton is well ahead in the 11th dimension.
What you really seem to be saying is that a white candidate would be further ahead. Well, wow, what a startling insight.
How do you know this? The 2 most recent polls have McCain ahead by 2 (a statistical tie) and Obama up by 8. That puts that state very much in play.
Oh great to see that you have finally seen the light regarding Michigan.
Obama has hit 85 on Intrade for the first time.
ShowsOn are you seriously accusing Adam of racism?
SNIP: Abusive comment deleted – The Management.
SNIP: Abusive comment deleted – The Management.
310 – No, I don’t think he is. He’s only accused Adam of accusing US voters of racism. It’s the old chestnut of the roundly discredited ‘Bradley Effect’ raising its head like Putin again
For example: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/the_bradley_effect_selective_m.html
You can do better than this! This contribution was so second-rate.
I don’t think Clinton and Gore would be further ahead than Obama because they’re white, so I’m not accusing anyone of anything (except ShowsOn of being a SNIP, but we already knew that). They’d be further ahead because they have superior qualifications to be President.
But I don’t know why you’d assume that the only things that Gore and Hilary Clinton would have in common, or conversely, the only thing that would set them apart from Obama would be the colour of their skin.
Comment directed at ShowsOn and co of course.
This is pure speculation, that – unlike your hilarious claims about Michigan – can never be tested.
Great work! If you lose you win, if you win you win!
Please go back to favourably comparing McCain with Churchill, it was even funnier.
What about the characteristics that Obama has that are SUPERIOR to Gore and Clinton? Like the fact he isn’t a failed presidential candidate, or a former first lady that a lot of people hate. Do we ever stop to think of those attributes? Do we ever speculate that maybe, just maybe, Obama would be further ahead? If we are going to just speculate based on no evidence whatsoever, then we can let our speculations lead us in any direction we like.
Sure, sure. By at least 45.56% in the polls I reckon. Those juicy sour grapes must taste soooo good!
315 – Except that Obama has that key qualification for this election that the white roadkill didn’t have – the embodiment of, and platform for, change. And change is what 89% of the voters want.
That’s what the polls say, as opposed to empty speculation about baseless hypotheticals.
I’m not arguing either way… I’m just perplexed why you’d make this comment:
“What you really seem to be saying is that a white candidate would be further ahead. Well, wow, what a startling insight.”
It makes no difference to me whether Gore, Clinton or Obama are President of another country.
If Adam is allowed to speculate based on no evidence whatsoever, then surely I am entitled to do exactly the same. I am SO SORRY if I offended you for basing my speculation around the issue of race. But why not, it isn’t any less plausible than all the “Hillary would be leading by more” claims that are purely based on speculation.
Actually I can’t think of anything that will put an end to the neocon period faster that a Obama win, and his skin color is part of it. Clinton couldn’t even win the democratic primary, Gore wasn’t in the race so why the mention.
To heal America he really is the best option.
So he is the best option merely for what he is not… he is not a neocon. Fair enough.
ltep, Rudd got in because he was not Howard, people get so fed up they will try something new, even if the outcome is unknown.
That’s why I said fair enough. When things are so bad it seems you may as well take a stab in the dark I suppose.
I agree, plus, I have absolutely no idea what McCain would do. So it isn’t like Obama is the only known unknown in this election.
Obama is just a lot younger, a lot calmer than McCain, and installing a Democrat would clean out all the Republican deadwood that has stuffed up most parts of the U.S. Government.
That’s racist!!!!
My own view is a the drovers dog could have won against McCain, the right wing nutters are on the nose and McCain is just too old. The big issue was, who could win the primary; Clinton didn’t.
Rudd was not an “unknown”. There is no comparison between Rudd and Obama, don’t try to make one up pleaaaaaase.
#330
It’s quite clear it would take a fair bit more than a “drovers dog” to win against McCain, especially since he’s still polling in the mid-forties when absolutely everything that is going on domestically and globally is working against the Republicans.
Opposition front-bencher to P.M. in 6.5 years isn’t exactly common.
State Senator to President in 4 years is even less common…
If only he wasn’t forced to pick Palin…
I see the Republican establishment forcing him to pick Palin as the ultimate payback for his “Maverick” years.
If he wins, that will just demonstrate how EXCEPTIONAL a candidate he was.
Or just how crap a candidate McCain was…
Ron,
Less ranting, more listening – you’re getting things arse about.
The procedures for some of the states that ACORN has to abide by can be found here:
http://www.publicintegrity.org/blog/entry/885/
ACORN reports the suspicious registrations it receives from its canvassers to the authorities.It flags those suspicious registrations for the State authorities and sends them in to authorities in separate bags. It does this because it is required by law to send in ALL registrations it receives, including ones it knows are dodgy and ones that have information missing.
This is how the State authorities become aware of most of the fraudulent registrations in the first place – ACORN reports them!
For instance:
From LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-acorn15-2008oct15,0,6539990.story
From USA Today:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/10/the-acorn-chron.html
How about Factcheck.org:
Here’s an interesting story about the GOP having the same problems in California with their voter registration drive and how it compares to ACORN. Again, the same reality pops out:
http://www.alternet.org/story/102933/
ACORN isn’t the one perpetrating fraud here, they are actually the victim of fraud since it is ACORN that ends up paying employees that provide fabricated registrations – paying employees for services that aren’t effectively provided.
For anyone that’s interested in US electoral law, Rick Hasen runs an excellent blog that goes through all the ins and outs of this (and other things):
http://electionlawblog.org/
It makes one appreciate the Australian Electoral Commission like never before!
But what really shits me to tears about all of this is that we have people dumping buckets of pure fantasy on an organisation whose driving purpose is to expand the democratic franchise. Is there anything more detestable on the civic society front than attempting to prevent people from having a say in the selection of their political leaders?
I can’t think of one.
Ron, get over that WSJ piece, it’s not even a piece of reporting, it’s an Opinion Column for gawds sake. You may as well be quoting Planet Janet.
ACORN hasn’t been convicted of fraud – it’s employees have, because ACORN itself was a victim of fraud by those same employees. Most of those ACORN employees prosecuted for creating fraudulent voter registrations were done so with the assistance of ACORN – ACORN dobbed most of them in!
Get it?
This.isnt.rocket.science.
Your desperation to characterise Obama as the root of all evil is letting you be played.for.a.sucker
NO YOU CAN’T SAY THIS! McCain is this century’s Winston Churchill! It is a PROVEN FACT, no speculation whatsoever.
Don’t encourage him!
oz
I fail to see you point, Rudd was a diplomatic in politics for a few years, Obama was a Lawyer who has been in the senate for a few years. There really is bugger all difference.
“You know something”, that is the way it’s going to be with the next generation they haven’t had sixty years to do stuff.
Why would Obama get greedy and look at ND, GA, WV and KY? Aren’t there enough states like CO and VA make sure you win, rather than spreading resources into irrelevant states? All he needs is 270 EV. It makes him look overconfident going for too much. And there does seem to be a very slight narrowing, probably about 1% over a week.
fredn
The Rudd vs Obama comparisons are uncanny. Similar experience levels. Only party leaders for a very short time. Both new enough to avoid being career politicians, and resonsibility for past crappy decisions. Both VERY disciplined and calm. Both up against very entrenched unpopular right wing leaders. Smear campaigns against them like water off a duck’s back (or possibly even helping them).
This could just be spin to scare the McCain campaign.
But if it is true, then surely McCain will need to respond and shift resources as well. McCain is still campaigning in blue states, which suggests to me he knows Colorado and maybe Virginia and Florida are already lost.
Intrade have remade their map to make the degrees of support easier to differentiate (more colour shades):
http://www.intrade.com/
Diogenes, Howard (surprisingly) never reached the depths of popularity as Bush has.
You could also say a common point between Rudd and Obama is their natural ability with sloganeering and spin.
Although I marginally preferred Obama for not especially strong reasons, I think that Hillary would have been a fine candidate and an excellent President if elected, which she would have been.
However there is no point in being misty-eyed about her negatives. The fact is that she energises the Republican base even more than Sarah Palin, and the chances of her winning in a landslide were always low. If elected President, she would start with probably a record unfavourable rating for a first-term President.
Clearly experience is not the only criterion in being either a successful candidate or a good President. History has shown that Obama is an appealing candidate to Democratic primary voters, and so far is proving to be an appealing candidate to general voters.
ShowsOn @ 323,
You have my support
….. lots of things I’ve read on the blog today and I’ve thought about replying to them, some in outright anger. I get a reply composed and think “no” better not, I don’t want to go there. Glad you’ve the courage to stand up and say what you think on the racial overtones of this election home stretch. Good on you. 
{it isn’t that I don’t have the courage, but (1) I’m flat out today and (2) I don’t want William to “snip” my train of thought so I’ll piggyback onto yours 
}
For what it is worth, my .02 on the Hillary vs. Obama debate. I think it is a non issue. I said months ago that I thought that the US was more sexist than they were racist and I’ve been proven right. I.e the candidates chance of getting the Dem. nomination fell along these lines in this order: white man, black man, white woman, black woman. Since Obama has shown himself to be a capable bloke, there isn’t any way that Hillary was going to get in in the end. Quite simply, the less sophisticated parts of the Democratic party {I, for myself, can’t call them rednecks in the Democratic party, will reserve that term for the Republican equivelent, at least “our side” are voting the right party in the end
} would rather elect a man of either race before they would elect a woman of either race.
For the Hillary against a Republican debate, i.e IF she had been the nominee, she would still win because with the economy in the tank, no Republican would win. BUT because of the stronger barrier against sexism rather than racisim, the margin would in fact have ultimately ended up being much closer than it will turn out to be with Obama at the top of the Democratic ticket. For those who think otherwise, you go live in the US for awhile, especially in parts of Ohio and West Virginia, and you would quickly change your tune. That is a window into the US political psyche that you simply can not get unless you’ve lived there for awhile. “Joe Six pack” isn’t going to let any woman tell him what to do period end of sentance. Don’t even know if jj would have had that in California where he is from but I gather from his earlier responses that he’s been here in Oz much longer than I have so his first hand experience with the USA is much more removed than mine is.
Apologies for not having deleted ShowsOn’s idiotic comment at 312 much, much sooner.
ShowsOn, you are arguing a very good case and I agree with your sentiments. You know when you’re winning a debate when the opposing side start the personal attacks. Well done.
Pages: « 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 » Show All